so were you alright with reagan dealing with south africa? and i'm not talking about imposing will, even though I would like to think I personally would step in if I saw such a "ceremony" but I'm not going to say that's okay because that's your law or value. at some point law and values have to come down to some core beliefs
Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You pretty much covers it, but then again there are some pretty masochistic MFer's out there you couldn't even trust with that.
Me telling my government to no deal with folx i don't like is one thing me telling my government to go guns blazing to enforce my values on another culture is another. To continue the previous analogy It is the difference from me watching your undisciplined kids and saying. . . i won't visit again versus me starting spaking them and enforcing my ideals of discipline on them regardless of what you and your wife thinks Rocket River
you're changing your argument and in the process trying to change mine. I never said anything about imposing will, I said I wouldn't be okay. you implied in another country you might think differently. the article isn't about opposing will, its about not giving something a free pass in the name of religion
There is such a major flaw about this line of thinking being represented by the OP. Correlation is not causation is the biggest one. How do we know Islam is the cause of female mutilation and suppression of women? Did these things all of a sudden appear when Islam did? I suspect not. Does every Islamic country have this problem? Definitely not. So where do people make this link? It's just false. And these practices happened in the west as well before the industrial revolution. All of that points more towards the need to help industrialize and bring that region of the world up. They are still in the dark ages, a lot of which is due to European Colonization and empire building.
I agree, I know its cultural practice, but I think the same thing can be applied to religious practices so I wouldn't get caught up in the example. there are plenty of laws based in islam in some countries that we can use as examples, do you think its right to make woman cover her face?
You see there is a difference between imposing your will and respecting. The article is saying you don't have to RESPECT other cultures. It's not saying you now have to force people to do what you believe. At the same time, it doesn't bar you from trying to spread what you believe. At this point, if there is something which is scientifically harming society, we have to make sure that we make it a human rights issue and do our best to show those people the scientific side of things. If they are making these decisions with full knowledge that science says not to - that's their choice. We don't have to respect it, but we don't have to force them to do anything. We can always try to change their minds. If they are doing it to children, we need to take those children away IMO - I don't think it's fair that someone makes that choice for the children.
So, you respect other cultures, that impose their will on their individuals? I don't respect many cultures that I can think of. I tolerate them as a necessity and out of practicality. Is there an agnostic, pacifist, democratic, socialist, pro-science, anti-consumerist, eugenic, egalitarian culture anywhere out there?
So . . . what you saying is . .. basically just say . . that's bad and move on? OK. There are things that other people do that I think is bad. However, The crust of the original article leads me to beleive it is the 1st step. Once she convinces us that this is bad. .. then the next step is doing something about it. . . . Do you think she just wants people to condemn these things but leave them alone ? We playing word games here. Once we make the step of not respecting a thing then it is an easy move. . . to simply doing to them what you like. We don't respect ants . .so we step in their piles. Rocket River
Lens 1: Spoiler culture 1: Values inner beauty and the development of the person over the image culture 2: Values outer beauty, often disproportionately rewarding those with more desirable physical attributes regardless of ability or intellect which culture is "better?" Lens 2: Spoiler culture 1: Imposes strict codes of dress and conduct, often impeding physical movement and selection of style. Breaking these codes often carries heavy consequences. culture 2: Imposes light codes of dress and conduct, allowing free movement and wide range of style. Breaking these codes carry consequences, but everyone makes mistakes and second chances are afforded easily. which culture is "better?" 99.999% of arguments that state "X is invariably better than Y" are full of *****. Even the smallest issues are so vastly multifaceted and touch on such a wide range of personal values that there is no reasonable way to make such a blanket statement. The ONLY reason the article in the OP holds any water is because of "choice." The main examples cited by her and some of the posts operate on the assumption/fact that the subject did not "choose" to participate in whatever "barbaric" cultural ritual. Had that person chosen to participate in that culture, then all the examples in this thread would be in vain. The main problem being danced around in the article isn't X culture or Y culture, or "I respect X culture" or "I hate Y culture" ... it's the presence or absence of choice.
I don't know, her example about helping the girl is here in the states. but if that girl doesn't want to get married, and she lives here she doesn't have to. and if she reaches out to someone to help get out of her situation, I don't see a problem if they help
Up to the early 90s, liberals held mantle of foreign interventionism. This is where we'd invade or interfere with other nations in the name of promoting democracy and free markets. The Bush disaster has been a painful experience upon the American psyche. We question our motives after the catastrophic loss in blood and treasure without an end of combat in sight. Liberals, whether they know it or not, have shut that Nation Building part of themselves where once many wore on their sleeves (lest they be labeled a NeoCon). Culture is a way of life. As it becomes one's identity, it causes one to fight for self preservation. As a Chinese American, I'm aware of a 5,000 year legacy that gives legitimacy as China being the "oldest living civilization". It is more than an idea. It is a world view, and it exists in every one of us. Even the food you eat has been a by product of cultures and traditions. It once served as a means to survive against hostile and harmful substances. Mothers who secured cleaner and more nutritious sources of food benefited the family. Now we see at as takeout or an exotic way to spend an evening. But those who eat traditional foods are likely to reap health benefits and reduce risks of "modern diseases" like diabetes or hypertension. As we grow closer to death, a part of us will question our legacy and permanence. Some who maintain culture and keep it alive can find an extension of their personal meaning through its contribution. Much like how nationalism can cause people to perform acts of self sacrifice. As Americans, our culture is numbers and performance based. While we've melded other cultures and traditions, the unifying theme is finding what works. We've assumed that our culture can be exported, but the latest focus in globalization is catering to regional tastes and markets. So the idea that a culture, or its traditions at the very least, can be destroyed with what immediately works and fits can be applied to an extent, but the experiences and its distances apart will create an entirely new culture of its own.
I repped your post because I think it was a good one. But... I think you oversimplify secular vs religious because of your current view of religion. The problem isn't secularism battling religion, it's human beings, be they secular or Christian, or Jewish, etc. have always had a nature of selfishness, warmongering, etc. I know firm fundamental Baptists who would tell you that a literal reading of the Bible's verses about submitting to a husband does not mean anything close to a limitation on the rights of a woman.
Having your ****oris cut up so that men don't have to worry about you enjoying sexual acts is wrong. There is no opinion in play there. It is men who have the power to abuse stripping away from a woman (violently) part of her body that was given to her by God/Nature/whatever you want to believe in because of his own insecurity and control issues. Cultures that practice group rape of women are wrong, no matter their generational teachings. They are wrong. I won't respect them, and I have no problem with "right" being enforced on them. You gang rape a woman as a village, you deserve to be shot whether your grandpa says it's ok or not.
Think about your Your I'm right . .you are wrong . ..screw you, barbarians - mentality the next time you ask . . . WHY DO THEY HATE US? because obviously . . . you hate them. Rocket River
If people who rape and mutilate want to hate me I will count it to my credit as a human being. I count it a discredit you that you would offer any defense.
Understood. hypothetical: I beleive 14 yr olds should be able to have as much sex as possible. I facilitate them having sex . . . . even if their parents and American culture disagrees am I wrong for sticking with my values and ideals and acting on them? Hypothetical 2 [I figure you shall point to the law on the previous one] I an 17 yr doesn't want to goto college, he wants to be a mime . . parents want him too. I step in and decide the parents are wrong . . . and tell the kid he can do what he wants . . I have some mime contacts in NYC and I will hook him up. The Father/mother disown the son . .and won't support him. says he can never return . . . Now I have sent a kid to NYC with no money, my contacts and that is it . . .. am I wrong? to do this? Rocket River
Good for you. Justifying rape isn't culture, it's an attack on humanity. You can hide behind moral cowardice if you want and call it whatever you want, but it is cowardice.
